User Tag List

First 6141516171826 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 511

  1. #151
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    That's not what MBTI does.It's ridiculous to think that MBTI states that 'he's ISFP, thus, he generally prefers introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving'. You're just stretching out the ISFP in statement format. This would be meaningless, and, make MBTI look redundant. MBTI gives applicable operations in terms of behaviours/thoughts to what these 'introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving' are. Thus, we must look carefully at the generalization rising out of the definitions MBTI assigns to introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving.

    You are twisting, and grappling at straws, to save face for using the word 'generalizations' to MBTI incorrectly. It's not working.

    If you say so. I think it's pretty comical that you guys can even pretend such a system is not one of generalizations, though.

    Yes, MBTI gives applicable operations in terms of behaviors and thoughts, but the test itself spends 70 questions asking you directly which of these thoughts and behaviors describe you best. The validity comes from the fact that all the data is provided by the test-taker himself.

    The generalization part comes when it takes your personally stated preferences on these external stimuli and makes guesses about how you will respond to other, similar external stimuli in the future. It's behavioralism, and it IS a generalization because it takes a small sampling of your own behavioral preference and then tries to infer information about other situations.

    I totally agree that we must look carefully at the generalizations rising from these definitions...as you just said. How does this make MBTI not a system of generalizations?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #152
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    People aren't playing cards, if you want to make negative assumptions about good people like the one Jen pointed out, then you insult them and the people that like them. If you're ok with that then that's ok, just realise it does make you look quite callous.
    Close, but I don't use MBTI to make negative assumptions about anyone. I use it as a way to make guesses at explanations for behaviors that I have directly observed. There's a subtle difference there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    That's not a good example to use to prove a case for MBTI. In a deck of cards, there is a finite assumed. 54 cards, 26 black, 26 red.

    There is no such finite assumptions with MBTI, hence, it makes predictions, even based on type a lot more shaky, because you don't know what part of the all you're trying to predict, because there is no all. Knowing the ENTP profile, doesn't reveal ALL about an individual ENTP. But, knowing all about the number of red cards on the table, does give a prediction (due to probability) about what the next card can be. There's a denominator there, but there is no denominator (of ALL) in MBTI.

    This is why we must be careful to speak of generalizations coming from MBTI.
    Yes, and the fact that a deck of cards is finite is why I can use precise numerical probabilities to describe it, but not with MBTI; however, the principle of increased predictability is still the same, and still based entirely on the concept of generalizations. (It's 52 cards, btw.)

    As for your next paragraph, well, I think you've just restated my point, and at this point I suspect that you may misunderstand the definition of "generalization":

    –noun
    1. the act or process of generalizing.
    2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.

    A general statement, idea, or principle. A generalization doesn't have to describe ALL members of a given group or class in order to have validity. As long as it describes a majority of them a majority of the time, it's useful.

    For another example, here's a generalization: Black people are better at basketball than white people.

    Of course, there are certainly great white basketball players. There are probably even more black people who suck at basketball, but neither of these facts reduces the value of said generalization. Obviously examples abound of white people who play basketball better than black people, and yet the generalization itself still rings true. It's a question of averages, not of applying exact or rigid labels to every individual member of a particular group. This is the very definition of a generalization.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #153
    unscannable Tigerlily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    TIGR
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,935

    Default

    I agree. An online test isn't going to be that accurate. For me MBTI is a good indicator providing the person knows themselves well enough and remain objective while taking it. I'd be interested in taking it from a trained psychologist to see if the results match.
    Time is a delicate mistress.

  4. #154
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Good stuff
    Part of me wonders how much this has changed with late GenerationY. Perhaps I'm delusional or hanging around the wrong group of crowd, but it almost seems to be natural for people to declare themselves as 'different', 'unique' or 'weird' rather than be normal.

    For me it's even more of a mindscrew when I hear friends that deem themselves as weird and have experienced harsh times as a child rant and push away another social misfit. It's the Fe speaking... but you'd think that having experienced such thing. People won't be so willing to go against others.

    My friends would describe me as strange. ISFJs make roughly 10% of the population. They have noted that I have a tendancy to talk about more concrete things (I commented on the difference first) such as relationships, what's occuring and what might happen. There's been no conflict at all whatsoever despite the S/N difference. Personally I identify as quite a strong sensor as Ni/Ne doesn't come easily to me. However when I'm taking online tests or speaking to other people. There are times my results are more slanted towards the centre or socionics forums passing me off as an N purely because my interests usually side more towards psychology etc.

    It does irk me when I see a post that's blatantly bashing sensors (i.e. N = Alien thread) to the extent I was extremely tempted to reply back sarcastically but meh. Why bother... perhaps people are just venting.

  5. #155
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jen View Post
    I agree. An online test isn't going to be that accurate. For me MBTI is a good indicator providing the person knows themselves well enough to be subjective and honest while taking it. I'd be interested in taking it from a trained psychologist to see if the results are the same.
    It's probably too late to take it from a trained psychologist, as you already understand the concepts in the system. I took it when naive (ha, I probably still am) with an accredited assessor (3 day workshop).

    She made the point more than once that if someone already knew how MBTI worked, the testing was not going to work, as it is difficult (if not impossible) to answer the questions without colouring the answers with what we think (or feel, ha!) they mean.

  6. #156
    unscannable Tigerlily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    TIGR
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    It's probably too late to take it from a trained psychologist, as you already understand the concepts in the system. I took it when naive (ha, I probably still am) with an accredited assessor (3 day workshop).

    She made the point more than once that if someone already knew how MBTI worked, the testing was not going to work, as it is difficult (if not impossible) to answer the questions without colouring the answers with what we think (or feel, ha!) they mean.
    Makes sense. So do you agree with the outcome?
    Time is a delicate mistress.

  7. #157
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jen View Post
    So are you and NF or NT?
    When officially tested, and naive, I was XNTP, with them deciding on "I" (and therefore INTP) due to the follow up observations of how my thought processes worked, how I interacted in the workshop with objects etc.

    I think it was something like this

    E/I +0 ("I") N (+60) T (+20), P (+100)

  8. #158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Obviously, I don't believe that testing "100% N" means I never use any Sensing. That should be understood based on the inherent limitations in the system--of course I use S sometimes; I just prefer to use N a lot more. The very fact that I know and acknowledge this should quell any suspicions you might have about my supposed overconfidence in the validity of MBTI.
    You misunderstood. I didn't question your confidence in the validity in MBTI but in the testing of it. What else could 100% N mean if not that you have 0% S? Why then do you place importance "being that I score 100% N" earlier? (Btw, I don't believe in percentages based off of tests. I'm just throwing that out there.).

    I obviously don't think it's perfect, but it doesn't need to be in order to be useful.
    Did I say it had to be perfect in order to be useful? I merely pointed out that the system isn't or our understanding of it isn't. I wasn't displacing value of its imperfection.

    You people who run around spouting off this stuff about how it's "unproven" are missing the point;
    "You people"? lol The point wasn't that the system isn't scientifically proven, hence unusable, but that an NT wouldn't so easily believe in the system (tho' I was teasing you, you missed it =/). They may still play with it but not be so quick to believe it works. Follow?


    Umm...how could MBTI not be a generalization? "He's ISFP" = "He generally prefers introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving."
    You didn't understand this, then?:
    Quote Originally Posted by moi
    You can say that our Types, collectively, are a generalization based off of specific processes working in tandem to create a pattern. Our interpretation of them becomes generalized, not the system itself.
    I'ma sayin' that the MBTI system isn't a generalization itself, but our interpretation of the collectivity of Types, which are formed through cognitive processes in order to create a pattern, are. The basic outline and interpretation of the Types are generalized. Not the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by SW
    Yes, MBTI gives applicable operations in terms of behaviors and thoughts, but the test itself spends 70 questions asking you directly which of these thoughts and behaviors describe you best. The validity comes from the fact that all the data is provided by the test-taker himself.
    Ever heard of confirmation bias?

  9. #159
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jen View Post
    So are you NF or NT?
    According to my opponents here, why bothering specifying? If we label Geoff an NF, we must, apparently, be able to prove that 100% of NFs on the planet have exactly his characteristics, or the entire system is totally worthless.

    What a joke.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #160
    unscannable Tigerlily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    TIGR
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    According to my opponents here, why bothering specifying? If we label Geoff an NF, we must, apparently, be able to prove that 100% of NFs on the planet have exactly his characteristics, or the entire system is totally worthless.

    What a joke.
    you're cute and funny. don't ever stop being you. lol
    Time is a delicate mistress.

Similar Threads

  1. TypeC biased against sensors?
    By Oaky in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-28-2010, 12:52 AM
  2. [NT] The NT Prejudice Against Feeling
    By Synarch in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 03:42 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Question for sensors?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 03:30 AM
  4. [ISTJ] Famous dead Sensors
    By labyrinthine in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-11-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO